Related top topics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In modern political science, the term Polyarchy
(Greek:
poly many, arkhe rule)[1] was
introduced by Robert A. Dahl, now emeritus professor at Yale
University, to describe a form of government in which power is
vested in three or more persons. This form of government was first
implemented in the United States and was gradually adopted by many
other countries. According to Dahl, the fundamental democratic
principle is that when it comes to binding collective decisions,
each person in a political community is entitled to be given equal
consideration to their interests. A polyarchy is a nation-state
that has certain procedures that are necessary conditions for
following the democratic principle.[2][3] In
semblance, the word polycracy describes same form of government,
though from a slightly different premise: A polycracy is a state ruled by more than one
person, as opposed to monocracy. The word is derived from Greek
-- poly which means "many" and kratos which means "rule" or
"strength".

Contents

Definitions

Dahl's original theory of Polyarchal Democracy is in his 1956
book, A Preface to Democratic Theory. His theory evolved
over the decades, and the description in later writings is somewhat
different.

Advertisements

A Preface to Democratic
Theory

In this book, Dahl gives eight conditions, which measure the
extent to which majority rule is in effect in an organization.
These are (p. 84):

Every member of the organization performs the acts we assume to
constitute an expression of preference among the scheduled
alternatives, e.g., voting.

In tabulating these expressions (votes), the weight assigned to
each individual is identical.

The alternative with the greatest number of votes is declared
the winning choice.

Any member who perceives a set of alternatives, at least one of
which he regards as preferable to any of the alternatives presently
scheduled, can insert his preferred alternative(s) among those
scheduled for voting.

All individuals possess identical information about the
alternatives.

Alternatives (leaders or policies) with the greatest number of
votes displace any alternatives (leaders or policies) with fewer
votes.

The orders of elected officials are executed.

Either all interelection decisions are subordinate or executory
to those arrived at during the election stage, i.e, elections are
in a sense controlling; or new decisions during the interelection
period are governed by the preceding seven conditions, operating,
however, under rather different institutional circumstances; or
both.

Dahl hypothesized that each of these condition can be
quantified, and suggested using the term polyarchy to call an
organization that scores high on the scales for all the eight
conditions.

Democracy and its
critics

In his 1989 book, Democracy and its critics, Dahl gives
the following characteristics of a polyarchy (p. 233):

Control over governmental decisions about policy is
constitutionally vested in elected officials.

Elected officials are chosen and peacefully removed in
relatively frequent, fair and free elections in which coercion is
quite limited.

Practically all adults have the right to vote in these
elections.

Most adults also have the right to run for the public offices
for which candidates run in these elections.

Citizens have an effectively enforced right to freedom of
expression, particularly political expression, including criticism
of the officials, the conduct of the government, the prevailing
political, economic, and social system, and the dominant
ideology.

They also have access to alternative sources of information
that are not monopolized by the government or any other single
group.

Finally, they have an effectively enforced right to form and
join autonomous associations, including political associations,
such as political parties and interest groups, that attempt to
influence the government by competing in elections and by other
peaceful means.

The Beliefs of Political Activists- treat them as major
independent variables

Foreign Control- foreign domination can affect all the
conditions and alter available options

Characteristics

Polyarchy and its procedures by itself may be insufficient for
achieving full democracy. For example, poor people may be unable to
participate in the political process.[3]

Moreover, perceived polyarchies -such as the United States- may
bar a substantial amount of its citizens from participating in its
national electoral process. For example, more than four million
U.S. citizens residing in the U.S. territories
(such as Puerto
Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands) are excluded from
participating in the election of any voting-member of Congress,
which are the political bodies that hold ultimate sovereignty over
them.[4][5]

When, in the 1940s, Joseph Schumpeter argued that
ordinary citizens should limit their participation in a democracy
to electing its leaders, he was effectively arguing for polyarchy.
This contrasts with the view presented in the eighteenth century by
Rousseau, that the health of a
polity depended on active citizen involvement in all aspects of
governance. According to Schumpeter, massive political
participation is regarded as undesirable and even dangerous.
Schumpeter thought that the electoral masses are incapable of
political participation other than voting for their leaders. He
claimed most political issues are so remote from the daily lives of
ordinary people, that they can not make sound judgements about
opinions, policies and ideologies.

In Preface to Democratic Theory (1956) Dahl argues that
an increase in citizen political involvement may not always be
beneficial for polyarchy. An increase in the political
participation of members of "lower" socioeconomic classes, for
example, could reduce the support for the basic norms of polyarchy,
because members of those classes are more pre-disposed to be
authoritarian-minded.[6][7]

In a discussion of contemporary British foreign policy, Mark Curtis stated that
"Polyarchy is generally what British leaders mean when they speak
of promoting 'democracy' abroad. This is a system in which a small
group actually rules and mass participation is confined to choosing
leaders in elections managed by competing elites." [8]